The expense of shooting film

[Alan Edward Klein]

There seems to be a lot of people who are buying vinyl records and record players. I would never do that now as I'm satisfied with digital music. It's the same with film, people who still ride horses, and who like to bowl.

 

[Kino]

A 400 foot roll of Eastman Kodak Double-X Black-and-White Negative Film 5222 @ $345 USD will yield about 72 x 36 exposure rolls if you use a bulk loader.

Unit price will be about $5.20 per roll, not counting cartridge.

 

[madNbad]

A 400 foot roll of Eastman Kodak Double-X Black-and-White Negative Film 5222 @ $345 USD will yield about 72 x 36 exposure rolls if you use a bulk loader.

Unit price will be about $5.20 per roll, not counting cartridge.

Not including the cost of a proper way to spool in down to hundred foot rolls. I gave it serious consideration and even purchased a box of 100’ microfilm reels, stripping the old NYT off was a treat. Then the idea of a 400’ roll of film unspooling in my dark tent did not seem very appealing. If you have a darkroom or even a light tight area to set up a two reel system, then it’s a bargain.

 

[Kino]

Here's a 3d print design for a 400 foot bulk loader and I have seen 1000 ft designs as well. Might be worth investigating.

400ft+ roll Film Bulk Loader

It is a movie reel bulk loader. Is design for reels with the center core. Specifically the U code which has a inner diameter of 25.4mm. You will need to apply some felt to the film exit to properly light seal it. I used felt from my local fabric supply shop. Enjoy.

cults3d.com

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Not including the cost of a proper way to spool in down to hundred foot rolls. I gave it serious consideration and even purchased a box of 100’ microfilm reels, stripping the old NYT off was a treat. Then the idea of a 400’ roll of film unspooling in my dark tent did not seem very appealing. If you have a darkroom or even a light tight area to set up a two reel system, then it’s a bargain.

That would be a sight to see. But you'd have to turn the lights on to see it.

 

[Roger Cole]

There seems to be a lot of people who are buying vinyl records and record players. I would never do that now as I'm satisfied with digital music. It's the same with film, people who still ride horses, and who like to bowl.

I'm one of them. A fellow vinyl collector remarked to me that the physical quality of the vinyl is so much better today (which it is) but also that LPs often cost $20 - $30. I replied, "show me anything else that doesn't cost a lot more than it used to" and he had to concede the point.

Everything is more expensive. It's not just film.

 

[madNbad]

That would be a sight to see. But you'd have to turn the lights on to see it.

I learned my lesson when trying to spool a hundred feet of 5222 on to a core. Thing were fine until something went pop and I had about fifty feet of film headed in different directions.

 

[Roger Cole]

A 400 foot roll of Eastman Kodak Double-X Black-and-White Negative Film 5222 @ $345 USD will yield about 72 x 36 exposure rolls if you use a bulk loader.

Unit price will be about $5.20 per roll, not counting cartridge.

$345 / 72 = just about 1/10th of a cent over $4.79. Are you including other costs like shipping?

If the least expensive possible fresh B&W film is the goal then 100' spools of Arista branded Foma are $63.99 from Freestyle, or $3.55(5) per 36 exposure roll. Obviously they don't have Kodak quality but also obviously they can be used to make good images. Direct from Fotoimpex in Europe is even cheaper in pure price terms but shipping becomes a bigger factor of course. Currently the price is 47.30 - 51.50 EUR depending on which film, and the current EUR to USD exchange rate is 1 EUR = $1.09 making the price in dollars $51.55 - $56.13. That's down to just over $2.86 per roll but again discounting shipping. If buying a lot of film it would be the least expensive way to go, probably not for smaller quantities.

Within reason though I look for the best film for purpose, not the cheapest. But I'm not a college student working PT or a 20 something scraping by, either, and I've been both, so I understand that too.

 

[Kino]

$345 / 72 = just about 1/10th of a cent over $4.79. Are you including other costs like shipping?

I'd like to say that was the case, but I got distracted and had two calculator apps open and grabbed the wrong sum. You're right, but shipping would also be a factor.

Used to be you could buy short ends from motion picture labs of everything from camera negative, interpositive and positive stock for peanuts. It was fun to play and you could produce some good images with the stuff with IF you could tolerate the incredibly low sensitivity of the emulsions.

Too bad that has vanished...

 

[Roger Cole]

Exactly. So if their expectation of quality is modest, they’ll be satisfied with their phones. Else not.

In terms of technical quality, the equipment sets the limit. In terms of artistic expression within that constraint, it’s 100% the photographer.

If you are convinced of that and those are important considerations, you presumably prefer digital. But I imagine the reason for this thread was to highlight the cost of film for those of us who wish to stick with it, not to start another film vs digital row.

Modern camera phones are capable of results that are well beyond modest. They've REALLY improved, to an extent people wouldn't believe if they are only using a phone two or more generations old or haven't really tried it.

I have no doubt I could make at least 11x14 prints that would be worthy of hanging on the wall from images from my iPhone 13 Pro, and the newer 14 is even better. There are entire books out on getting the most from them.

They're not a Hasselblad by any means, but it's shocking how far they've come. A modern generation phone camera is going to be more than good enough for 90%+ if not 95%+ of general users, and not just the bottom half of snapshooters.

I sometimes use mine something like a sketchbook. If I'm out walking or such and see something I'd like to photograph on film later I'll take a few quick shots. The phone encodes GPS data if I let it, making it easy to find again, and allows taking notes in the form of captions that will be right there with the "photo note" file(s.)

 

[Cholentpot]

Modern camera phones are capable of results that are well beyond modest. They've REALLY improved, to an extent people wouldn't believe if they are only using a phone two or more generations old or haven't really tried it.

I have no doubt I could make at least 11x14 prints that would be worthy of hanging on the wall from images from my iPhone 13 Pro, and the newer 14 is even better. There are entire books out on getting the most from them.

They're not a Hasselblad by any means, but it's shocking how far they've come. A modern generation phone camera is going to be more than good enough for 90%+ if not 95%+ of general users, and not just the bottom half of snapshooters.

I sometimes use mine something like a sketchbook. If I'm out walking or such and see something I'd like to photograph on film later I'll take a few quick shots. The phone encodes GPS data if I let it, making it easy to find again, and allows taking notes in the form of captions that will be right there with the "photo note" file(s.)

It goes even further, if the big guys like Canon and Nikon put the same effort into their pro bodies and wizardry side as the phone guys do photography would be at a different level.

Gimme the algorithms, AI, connectivity, predictive stuff and everything else in my Canon EOS or Nikon. Give me the ability to turn it off too, but cram all the cutting edge stuff in there. If I want barebones with no net I'll shoot film.

 

[pbromaghin]

Not including the cost of a proper way to spool in down to hundred foot rolls. I gave it serious consideration and even purchased a box of 100’ microfilm reels, stripping the old NYT off was a treat. Then the idea of a 400’ roll of film unspooling in my dark tent did not seem very appealing. If you have a darkroom or even a light tight area to set up a two reel system, then it’s a bargain.

Easy-peasy. Put the big roll on the left and the 100ft core on the right. Roll it on until the circumference reaches the little bits of tape. I do it in my dark bag. Cost? phphphphtt.

 

[pbromaghin]

I'd like to say that was the case, but I got distracted and had two calculator apps open and grabbed the wrong sum. You're right, but shipping would also be a factor.

Used to be you could buy short ends from motion picture labs of everything from camera negative, interpositive and positive stock for peanuts. It was fun to play and you could produce some good images with the stuff with IF you could tolerate the incredibly low sensitivity of the emulsions.

Too bad that has vanished...

Along with the 5222 for $345, B&H also have Vision3 color 400ft rolls for $364. Free shipping. That's $5.05 per roll. Add your own recycled leader to save another 5 shots per roll and you're shooting for pretty cheap.

 

[snusmumriken]

Easy-peasy. Put the big roll on the left and the 100ft core on the right. Roll it on until the circumference reaches the little bits of tape. I do it in my dark bag. Cost? phphphphtt.

View attachment 334345

That’s what I’ve done too. Overrun doesn’t happen because of the friction underneath. I found a piece of square section bar that fitted exactly into the 100ft core and made turning a lot easier. My fallback for this function was a short broad flat screwdriver.

 

[MattKing]

Now if you could adapt a ratcheting socket wrench to the winding process, you would be good to go!

 

[Flighter]

Easy-peasy. Put the big roll on the left and the 100ft core on the right. Roll it on until the circumference reaches the little bits of tape. I do it in my dark bag. Cost? phphphphtt.

View attachment 334345

Great idea, what's the spacing between the opposite tape edges (which I guess equals the diameter of a 100ft roll)? I'm thinking of starting bulk loading but the film I want only comes in 400ft rolls (or 1000ft but I'm not that ambitious).

 

[snusmumriken]

Now if you could adapt a ratcheting socket wrench to the winding process, you would be good to go!

Good idea!

 

[koraks]

Now if you could adapt a ratcheting socket wrench to the winding process, you would be good to go!

That's kind of what I did. Two 3d printed reels, both with a ball bearing embedded into it, and one with a handle, also with a bearing. Works super smooth. Just count the revolutions.

 

[pbromaghin]

Great idea, what's the spacing between the opposite tape edges (which I guess equals the diameter of a 100ft roll)? I'm thinking of starting bulk loading but the film I want only comes in 400ft rolls (or 1000ft but I'm not that ambitious).

Yes, I traced around an old 100ft can and put the tape just a little bit inside the circle so the reel would fit in the can for storage.

 

[Don_ih]

what's the spacing between the opposite tape edges

You can measure your bulk loader - but I think a film spool is about 3".

(It's 3 and 11/16")

 

[koraks]

There are convenient calculators online that you can use to determine the dimensions based on core diameter, thickness of the film and length. Modern films are around 150um.

 

[redbandit]

Now if you could adapt a ratcheting socket wrench to the winding process, you would be good to go!

no need for a socket wrench... just any old piece of metal,,, i have an old set of allen wrenches that included an enjoyable 1" version, HEAVY... but it would be perfect as any time i got tired of turning, i could crack a few walnuts to regain my strength

 

[Flighter]

Thanks all, it's still in the planning stage as I'm waiting for a bulk loader to come up at a price I like (and hopefully one with some old film inside for practice) and the 400ft reels of film are currently out of stock here. I did get some metal reloadable cassettes from Ukraine though so some progress!

 

[Tel]

I guess I should hang onto my Moviola rewinds. A quick check of the evil place shows them selling for $200+

 

[Kino]

I guess I should hang onto my Moviola rewinds. A quick check of the evil place shows them selling for $200+

Yes, you couldn't give them away a few years ago and then suddenly they are valuable.

I had to laugh at management when they tossed 10 pairs of perfectly functional rewinds because they were "ugly". "We'll just buy new ones."

Now its, "We can't afford to buy rewinds!".

Genius.